I think this argument goes like this: I am willing to have the terrorists kill me so I can keep enjoying my consitutional liberties! Let's stop the fighting and surrender so we can be truly free.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't agree with the premise at all. It makes liberals sound dumb, is my feeling. Go ahead and shoot me. I am a pacifist and I won't stand and fight as long as I can have my pez dispenser.
Like you think they don't have water on the plane?
Like saying. Go ahead just one little nuclear bomb a year. No big deal.
Much better to look for ways to calm down the escalating rhetoric on each side, while doing everything we can to agressiviely prevent such attacks, doncha think.
As I understand the conservative argument, it is "I will give up all my civil liberties if the government will promise to protect me." I don't know how to describe that without using the word cowardly.
Everytime I hear this argument, I wonder when our country became filled with so many scared people.
...How do you achieve the goal of winning the war on terror? When you're in a war, the goal should not be how to get out. It should be how to win and then to get out."
The strong don't really mind that the weak don't help win the war on terror. We just wish you wouldn't whine so much: it's scaring the children.
Then Bush is a miserable failure. This has been the most ill-conceived and poorly executed war in American history. The only thing keeping it from being FUBAR is the tremendous professionalism and competence of the military.
It's an incredible shame to have such a great military led by such a pack of sniveling political hyenas. Can you imagine a major corporation keeping a CEO who leads it the way Bush and Rumsfeld have led the war in Iraq?
"The strong" accept responsibility when things go wrong. A strong leader would ease the grief of a nation that has buried 2,500 of its finest young men and women. A strong leader knows when he must set aside personal loyalties and replace subordinates who aren't getting the job done.
All I see are blame shifters and ass kissers whose only plan to win the war is to tar their critics as traitors and terrorist sympathizers. They deserve history's harshest condemnation.
constitutional rights intact if push comes to shove.
Take freedom of speech. Would I miss it if I lost it?
Well it could mean I couldn't express my opinion on internet message boards, but other than that I don't see how my life would be any different. As a self-employed professional I'm pretty careful what I say in real life anyway, it is bad for business to be the village loudmouth.
I would miss my freedom of speech but not near as much as I would miss being alive.
Not that I have the slightest fear of being killed by terrorists, I am much more likely to be killed by a lightning strike given that I spend a lot of the time on the water holding a long pole in an area where lightning strikes are very common.
I'm glad folks are getting a sense of humor over the airport screenings.
The good news is the bloodthirsty jihadists are still dumb as rocks and focusing on low return attacks on airlines. Thats good for the rest of us. Its better than them figuring out that blowing up a PVC manufacturing plant can yield 20-100x the number casualties for the same investment it takes to bring down a couple of airliners.
If I could understand your argument, I could respond to it.
Who's doing the whining. It is the conservatives that are begging the government to take away their rights and protect them.
When the founding fathers signe the Declaration of Independence they knew they would be hanged if they lost the war. This is a far cry from all the Republicans who say, "you can't use civil liberties if you are dead."
“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,†said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot Act, quoted Patrick Henry, an icon of the American Revolution, in response: “Give me liberty or give me death.â€
The problem isn't people giving up their rights in order to be more secure. It is people giving up everyone's rights in some sort of false bargain. I can't think of a single right that doesn't do more to keep us safe than removing it ever could.
I totally missed the part about one nuclear bomb a year.
You don't think there is something unstable about hearing "I'll risk drinking water on planes" and thinking you heard "just one nuclear bomb a year".
People go onto the roads where more people die every month on highways than in 9/11... but they have little fear. You could get rid of that death with a low enough speed limit... why do you need to drive a little faster.
I don't know about how it makes liberals sound, but there is the "reality principle" to deal with here. Risk prevention is supposed to be rational.
Comments :
I hope
this sense of bravery and cold resolve against the emotion of feeling terrified... appeals to people of all ideologies, some people of, I mean.
Hmm...
Why does that ring a bell? Why...?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
you have a constitutional right
to bring water on an airplane? Way to go.
I think this argument goes like this: I am willing to have the terrorists kill me so I can keep enjoying my consitutional liberties! Let's stop the fighting and surrender so we can be truly free.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
and now
I have to run, as I am going out for some drinks and will miss all the bashing :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Careful they don't confiscate those drinks
for the greater protection of the bar.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
posted this at dkos
and lots of liberal agree with you... just sayin'.
I don't think water is the only thing we've given up.
This isn't "the" fighting.
You don't seem afraid to have Americans die in Iraq et cetera, "for freedom"... but taking water on a plane, that's just too risky.
You'll never be THAT safe.
Join the liberal at dkos saying taking the water is like allowing pistols on the plane.
and now they want my fluids!
and people said Hughes was crazy.
This seems over the top!
I don't agree with the premise at all. It makes liberals sound dumb, is my feeling. Go ahead and shoot me. I am a pacifist and I won't stand and fight as long as I can have my pez dispenser.
Like you think they don't have water on the plane?
Like saying. Go ahead just one little nuclear bomb a year. No big deal.
Much better to look for ways to calm down the escalating rhetoric on each side, while doing everything we can to agressiviely prevent such attacks, doncha think.
I distance myself from this argument.
I'm only half stupid
I see someone has tipped off the terrorists
as to how to build a Mentos Bomb.
I hope y'all are satisfied.
qui tacet consentire
The conservative argument
As I understand the conservative argument, it is "I will give up all my civil liberties if the government will promise to protect me." I don't know how to describe that without using the word cowardly.
Everytime I hear this argument, I wonder when our country became filled with so many scared people.
If you could understand it...
You would be a conservative.
Tony Snow put it well:
The strong don't really mind that the weak don't help win the war on terror. We just wish you wouldn't whine so much: it's scaring the children.
If you use Tony Snow's criteria
Then Bush is a miserable failure. This has been the most ill-conceived and poorly executed war in American history. The only thing keeping it from being FUBAR is the tremendous professionalism and competence of the military.
It's an incredible shame to have such a great military led by such a pack of sniveling political hyenas. Can you imagine a major corporation keeping a CEO who leads it the way Bush and Rumsfeld have led the war in Iraq?
"The strong" accept responsibility when things go wrong. A strong leader would ease the grief of a nation that has buried 2,500 of its finest young men and women. A strong leader knows when he must set aside personal loyalties and replace subordinates who aren't getting the job done.
All I see are blame shifters and ass kissers whose only plan to win the war is to tar their critics as traitors and terrorist sympathizers. They deserve history's harshest condemnation.
qui tacet consentire
I would rather be alive than have my
constitutional rights intact if push comes to shove.
Take freedom of speech. Would I miss it if I lost it?
Well it could mean I couldn't express my opinion on internet message boards, but other than that I don't see how my life would be any different. As a self-employed professional I'm pretty careful what I say in real life anyway, it is bad for business to be the village loudmouth.
I would miss my freedom of speech but not near as much as I would miss being alive.
Not that I have the slightest fear of being killed by terrorists, I am much more likely to be killed by a lightning strike given that I spend a lot of the time on the water holding a long pole in an area where lightning strikes are very common.
A sense of humor and mockery
I'm glad folks are getting a sense of humor over the airport screenings.
The good news is the bloodthirsty jihadists are still dumb as rocks and focusing on low return attacks on airlines. Thats good for the rest of us. Its better than them figuring out that blowing up a PVC manufacturing plant can yield 20-100x the number casualties for the same investment it takes to bring down a couple of airliners.
If I could understand
If I could understand your argument, I could respond to it.
Who's doing the whining. It is the conservatives that are begging the government to take away their rights and protect them.
When the founding fathers signe the Declaration of Independence they knew they would be hanged if they lost the war. This is a far cry from all the Republicans who say, "you can't use civil liberties if you are dead."
It is a false choice
The problem isn't people giving up their rights in order to be more secure. It is people giving up everyone's rights in some sort of false bargain. I can't think of a single right that doesn't do more to keep us safe than removing it ever could.
miss
I totally missed the part about one nuclear bomb a year.
You don't think there is something unstable about hearing "I'll risk drinking water on planes" and thinking you heard "just one nuclear bomb a year".
People go onto the roads where more people die every month on highways than in 9/11... but they have little fear. You could get rid of that death with a low enough speed limit... why do you need to drive a little faster.
I don't know about how it makes liberals sound, but there is the "reality principle" to deal with here. Risk prevention is supposed to be rational.
Agree the water thing is a little crazy
especially since any kind of bottle or gel or toothpaste like goo can make it across the Soutern border.
Your death toll on the roads argument is the exact same argument that the hawks use to describe the number of casualities in Iraq.
We should focus on zero attacks, through smart policies and good intelligence.
Suffering one attack is worth something.......... sorry I just can't buy that argument.
If you want to make the issue the hysterical over reaction (nail clippers mentality) that is realistic. Accepting attacks no way!
The policy should be imho accept 0 attacks on our soil or our civil liberties.
I'm only half stupid